Every year the FTC brings hundreds of cases against individuals and companies for violating consumer protection and competition laws that the agency enforces. These cases can involve fraud, scams, identity theft, false advertising, privacy violations, anti-competitive behavior and more. The Legal Library has detailed information about cases we have brought in federal court or through our internal administrative process, called an adjudicative proceeding.
The University of Phoenix, Inc.
In December 2019, the FTC announced The University of Phoenix and its parent company agreed to pay a record $191 million to resolve allegations that they used deceptive advertisements falsely touting their relationships and job opportunities with companies such as AT&T, Yahoo!, Microsoft, Twitter, and The American Red Cross. The settlement order requires UOP to pay $50 million in cash, as well as cancel $141 million in debts owed to the school by students harmed by the deceptive ads.
In March 2021, the FTC sent payments totaling nearly $50 million to more than 147,000 UOP students who may have been lured by allegedly deceptive advertisements.
In late September 2023, the U.S. Department of Education announced that it will forgive nearly $37 million in federal loans for more than 1,200 students affected by the University of Phoenix’s deceptive practices, based in part on the FTC’s 2019 case.
Hey Dude Inc., FTC v.
In September 2023, the FTC announced online shoe retailer Hey Dude, Inc. (Hey Dude) will pay $1.95 million to settle charges that the company misled consumers by suppressing negative reviews, including more than 80 percent of reviews that failed to provide four or more stars out of a possible five. The FTC also contends the company violated the Commission’s Mail, Internet, or Telephone Order Merchandise Rule in several ways between 2020 and 2022. In August 2024, the FTC announced it was returning $1.9 million to defrauded consumers.
American Screening, LLC
The Federal Trade Commission filed suit against American Screening for failing to deliver on promises that it could quickly ship products like face masks, sanitizer, and other personal protective equipment (PPE) related to the coronavirus pandemic.
The lawsuits allege that the companies violated the FTC’s Mail, Internet and Telephone Order Rule (Mail Order Rule), which requires that companies notify consumers of shipping delays in a timely manner and give consumers the chance to cancel orders and receive prompt refunds.
Statement of Chair Lina M. Khan Joined By Commissioner Rebecca Kelly Slaughter and Commissioner Alvaro Bedoya In the Matter of Amgen, Inc. and Horizon Therapeutics plc
ConsumerInfo.com, Inc. d/b/a Experian Consumer Services, U.S. v. (Experian II)
Blessings in No Time
The Federal Trade Commission and the state of Arkansas sued the operators of a “blessing loom” investment program, alleging that it has operated as an illegal pyramid scheme that bilked tens of millions of dollars from thousands of consumers, and targeted African Americans and harmed people struggling financially during the COVID-19 pandemic.
In their joint complaint, the FTC and Arkansas charged that the operators of Blessings in No Time (“BINT”) have lured people into joining their program by falsely promising investment returns as high as 800 percent. The complaint alleges that some BINT members paid as much as $62,700 to participate. In reality, though, as in other pyramid schemes, the vast majority of participants have lost money, the complaint alleges.
BINT’s operators are banned from the business of multi-level marketing as a result of enforcement actions taken by the Federal Trade Commission and the State of Arkansas alleging the operation of an illegal pyramid scheme.
Rejuvica, LLC., FTC v.
In July 2023, the Commission took action under the FTC Act and the OARFPA against the makers of Sobrenix, which was deceptively marketed to reduce and even eliminate alcohol cravings and consumption. As a result of the FTC’s suit, the defendants agreed to a proposed court order permanently banning them from making any unsubstantiated claims about health care products or services, as well as requiring them to pay $650,000 to provide refunds to consumers. In November 2024, the FTC announced it was sending $536,000 in refunds to defrauded consumers who bought the product.
Celsius Network, Inc., et al., FTC v.
The FTC announced a settlement Celsius Network that will permanently ban it from handling consumers’ assets and charged three former executives with tricking consumers into transferring cryptocurrency onto the platform by falsely promising that deposits would be safe and always available.
Life Management Services, Inc.
According to a 2016 complaint brought jointly with the Florida Attorney General’s Office, the Life Management defendants bombarded consumers with illegal robocalls in attempts to sell them bogus credit card interest rate reduction services. According to the complaint, the defendants guaranteed that they could substantially and permanently lower consumers’ credit card interest rates and save them thousands of dollars in interest payments. Consumers allegedly made up-front payments but rarely, if ever, got the promised services. In December 2018, a federal judge in Florida permanently banned Kevin W. Guice from the telemarketing and debt-relief industries, agreeing with the FTC and State that he founded and operated the scam that took in over $23 million from more than 10,000 consumers, until halted by a June 2016. In July 2023, the FTC returned more than $540,000 to defrauded consumers.
Altria Group/JUUL Labs, In the Matter of
The Federal Trade Commission filed an administrative complaint alleging that Altria Group, Inc. and JUUL Labs, Inc. entered a series of agreements, including Altria’s acquisition of a 35% stake in JUUL, that eliminated competition in violation of federal antitrust laws. According to the complaint, this series of agreements involved Altria ceasing to compete in the U.S. market for closed-system electronic cigarettes in return for a substantial ownership interest in JUUL, by far the dominant player in that market. In an initial decision announced on Feb. 24, 2022, Chief Administrative Law Judge D. Michael Chappell dismissed the antitrust charges in the complaint.
Elite IT Partners, Inc.
The Federal Trade Commission alleged Elite IT Partners, Inc. and its founder, President and CEO James Martinos settled FTC allegations that they tricked consumers into believing their computers were infected with viruses in order to sell them costly computer repair services.
Arete Financial Group
In November 2019, the Federal Trade Commission obtained a temporary restraining order halting an operation that bilked consumers out of millions of dollars by pretending to be affiliated with the U.S. Department of Education and falsely promising student loan debt relief. In September 2020, the FTC announced several of the operators settled FTC charges and agreed to pay at least $835,000. In January 2022, the FTC announced that the remaining defendants in the case are banned from providing student loan debt relief services in settlements with the FTC. The defendants are required to forfeit all of their frozen funds held by the receiver. In June 2023, the FTC sent more than $3.3 million to consumers harmed by this scam.
Cycra, Inc.
The Federal Trade Commission is taking action against motocross and ATV parts maker Cycra and its officer, Chad James, for falsely claiming that the company’s products were manufactured in the U.S. The FTC’s proposed order would stop Cycra and James from making deceptive claims about products being “Made in USA” and require them to pay a monetary judgment. In June 2023, the Commission announced the finalized order. In May 2024, the FTC sent $180,000 in refunds to consumers in this case.
Amgen Inc. and Horizon Therapeutics plc, FTC v.
Passport Automotive Group, Inc., FTC v.
The Federal Trade Commission filed a Complaint for Permanent Injunction, Monetary Relief, and Other Relief, for a permanent injunction and other relief, pursuant to Sections 5(a), 13(b), and 19 of the Federal Trade Commission Act (“FTC Act”), 15 U.S.C. §§ 45(a), 53(b), and 57b, and the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (“ECOA”), 15 U.S.C. §§ 1691-1691f. The Complaint charges that Defendants participated in deceptive and unfair acts or practices in violation of Section 5(a) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45(a), and the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (“ECOA”) and its implementing Regulation B, 12 C.F.R. § 202, in the advertising, sales, and financing of motor vehicles.
The Federal Trade Commission is sending payments totaling more than $3.3 million to customers of Passport Auto, a Washington D.C.-area auto dealer. In October 2022, the FTC charged Passport with adding hundreds, or even thousands, of dollars in illegal junk fees to car prices and for discriminating against Black and Latino consumers by charging them higher fees and financing costs.